Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

cathyreisenwitz writes "For over a year now journalists, civil liberties advocates, and members of Congress have been asking the Obama administration to release internal memoranda from the Office of Legal Counsel justifying Obama's targeted killing program. While the White House continues to deny that such memos exist, NBC is reporting that it has acquired the next best thing: A secretish 16-page white paper from the Department of Justice that was provided to select members of the Senate last June." Spencer Ackerman at Wired says the leaked rules "[trump] traditional Constitutional protections American citizens enjoy from being killed by their government without due process" by redefining the concept of "imminence."

Governments involved in clandestine assassinations. Who would have thought? And of course, it only happens in other countries, to Al Qaeda and the like. Surely. Oh, and if you believe this, I have a bridge or two I can sell you....

These people have chosen to be enemies of the USA. Back in the days of Cowboys and Indians, your only defense against "aiding the enemy" was to be as far away as possible. The US Army killed plenty of American citizens that lived with Natives...

The only real change here is that the DoD is actually targeting the terrorist bases WHEN American "citizens" are standing on them. They used to pretend they were getting them along with the other terrorists... But no more.

This issue has really far less to do with whether the targets are traitors or not and more to do with who is allowed to determine which Americans are and which Americans aren't traitors....

Here's a hint: If they're in an al-Qaida camp, and they're not hostages, then that means they've chosen to align with a group that wants to kill American citizens and violently overthrow the American government.

Here's a hint: If they're in an al-Qaida camp, and they're not hostages, then that means they've chosen to align with a group that wants to kill American citizens and violently overthrow the American government.

While I do lean towards your sympathies....do you really feel comfortable to that decision being in the hands of ONE man, with no checks and balances, as it has happened so far with President Obama?

Frankly, that bothers me. And right now...this decisions isn't limited to someone who is a traitor to the country standing on an enemy base at a time of war.

I want to make sure there are checks and balances...and openness so that this can not devolve into one man calling for a 'hit' to his perceived enemy in the US.

There's nothing in the rules so far that I see that even come close to prohibiting this.

How about American Citizen Abdulrahman al-Awlaki? He was born in Denver, Colorado on August 26, 1995 at 1:16 PM [washingtonpost.com]. He was killed by an American drone strike in Yemen on October 14, 2011. He was 16 years old at the time. Does anyone have any evidence that this teenager posed an imminent threat to the US?

Oh, yes, as Robert Gibbs said in an interview [theatlantic.com], it was Abdulrahman's fault that his father - who he hadn't seen in over two years - was an alleged terrorist. That's the threat he posed to America, and that's what justified killing him.

News reports, based on government sources, originally claimed that Awlaki's son was 21 years old and an Al Qaeda fighter (needless to say, as Terrorist often means: "anyone killed by the U.S."), but a birth certificate published by The Washington Post proved that he was born only 16 years ago in Denver. As The New Yorker's Amy Davidson wrote: "Looking at his birth certificate, one wonders what those assertions say either about the the quality of the government's evidence -- or the honesty of its claims -- and about our own capacity for self-deception."

And of Al Awlaki himself? He was killed because of his youtube postings. Freedom of speech, so long as you don't say stuff the Feds hate. That list of things the Feds hate? Sure to grow.

We are all ignorant, that's for sure. Perhaps if the US government had given US citizens due process, as required by the Constitution, then we would know what Abdulrahman was doing over there, and whether he was an enemy combatant.

And, even if Abdulrahman were taking up arms against the US [citation needed], and even if he weren't a US citizen, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, article 37, limits the punishment of anyone under the age of 18, specifically excluding capital punishment of the type that was meted out to Abdulrahman.

Due process is an amazing thing. You see, the government isn't always right. Sometimes they accuse the wrong person. Certainly the man who launched the "Amerithrax" attack on America is an evil terrorist who deserves no rights, correct? Lucky for Dr. Steven Hatfill, we still had due process back then. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Hatfill [wikipedia.org]

Or how about the guy who bombed some trains in Madrid in 2004? They found his fingerprints on the bag containing the bombs. Open and shut case, right? Well, lucky for Mr. Brandon Mayfield, we still had due process back then. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Mayfield [wikipedia.org]

And those are just US citizens! If we expand the scope of government fuckups to include foreign nationals, the list gets much bigger, much faster. Off the top of my head:

All were alleged terrorists. They weren't delivering pizza (Boumediene in particular was a member of the Red Crescent, which is a lot like our Red Cross), but all were eventually proven innocent of being terrorists.

So says the government that carries out their execution without trial, evidence, or conviction.

...The only real change here is that the DoD is actually targeting the terrorist bases WHEN American "citizens" are standing on them.

Or when they happen to be out on the open road [wikipedia.org], not on a terrorist base.

...I have less of a problem with the government killing confirmed traitors while ENGAGED in plotting against the USA, in a foreign country, with other enemies. That's open and shut...

Except if you read the article, that's not the case at all. An "imminent threat" now means: "recently involved in activies posing a violent threat...", so in other words, not imminent.

You don't want to get blowed up, don't stand with the enemy.

Also make sure that you're not falsely identified by an informant being tortured, and make sure that US intelligence makes no mistakes. I find your faith in the infallibility of the US government disturbing. Why do we even have trials with juries and evidence? I mean if the military (or police) know you're guilty, why waste time and resources? After all, American citizenship should have no bearing if someone says you're guilty, right?

I understand if a citizen is killed in combat while taking up arms for the enemy - that's normal warfare - but a drone strike outside of combat based solely on the assertions of intelligence? Even if the intelligence is correct, and the target is a Bad Guy, it's still a violation of due process prohibited by the constitution, and becomes unchecked power of life and death in the hands of the executive branch. I would hope everyone understands why that's a Bad Thing.

So says the government that carries out their execution without trial, evidence, or conviction.

To add what I think is an important part to that "So says the government that is constantly making mistakes that carries out their execution without trial, evidence, or conviction.

For me, the scary part isn't that the government is killing people. It's that said people don't get a chance to respond to the charges and get things straight. They put Ted Kennedy on a no-fly list. The senator. Transparency is important because they're terrible at their jobs.

Government: "We have eyewitness testimony that you're a terrorist operative!"
Bob:"What?!?"
Government: "Yeah, Joe said you were building a dirty bomb you were going to detonate in a crowded area."
Bob: "Joe is just mad because I stole his girlfriend."
Government" "... Oh... well, dick move, but we're not going to kill you for it. I guess we probably should have asked Joe why he reported you. Or taken that facebook status update where he says 'going to report Bob to homeland security for stealing Staci' into consideration."

Exactly. Government, when composed of noble, capable people passionate about civic virtue and beholden to the rule of law, can be a wonderful thing and a force for great good. When composed of corrupt or inept people who don't give a damn about the governed, it's horrible. I think people tend to think of the ones ordering drone strikes to fall in the former category (and they very well may), but they should think about what happens when they're in the latter.

Image that the bureaucrats behind your worst-ever DMV experience are making the calls on which Americans driving down a desert road get wiped out. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that anyone considers Brazil [imdb.com] closer to reality than fantasy opposes this sort of thing.

Back in the days of Cowboys and Indians, your only defense against "aiding the enemy" was to be as far away as possible. The US Army killed plenty of American citizens that lived with Natives...

I don't understand. Typically we remember the mistakes of the past to avoid repeating them, not to justify making them again.

I have less of a problem with the government killing confirmed traitors while ENGAGED in plotting against the USA, in a foreign country, with other enemies. That's open and shut...

How does one confirm traitors? Is it not through due process? In fact, the US Constitution names very specific requirements for due process regarding treason. Article 3, Section 3: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

The military KILLS PEOPLE...

The US military KILLS PEOPLE...who are not American citizens. Unless, of course, they've been engaged by said citizen.

.. They don't arrest people.

They are, in fact, required to take prisoners if their enemy surrenders. Article 3 of the fourth Geneva convention specifies that you cannot harm anyone who has laid down their arms and surrendered.

This nonsense of picking up US Citizens, on US soil for things that may have happened, then shipping them OUT of the USA without trial was a much larger affront to the Constitution than this new procedure is.

That would also be unacceptable, what's your point?

You don't want to get blowed up, don't stand with the enemy. American citizenship has no bearing if you are actively engaged in planning WAR against the USA.

If American citizens are collateral damage as a result of a strike on another target, that's a completely different story, and it would cover this situation. For you to specifically target an American citizen would require a trial. If, through due process, the citizen is found to be committing treason, Congress has the ability to define the punishment, which could be death through military strike. You can't skip the due process part, though.

One problem: this isn't about wars. This is to justify strikes in places like Pakistan (currently one of the most common) and areas of Africa (upcoming) where _we are not at war_. Therefore these are "police actions" carried out unilaterally by the executive branch.

How would you feel if the Queen of England decided that she personally had the right to execute anyone in America today, without charge, without trial, without our government's consent, and without a declaration of war? Replace the Queen with Obama and America with Pakistan and that _exactly_ the situation we have here.

His official policy is that anyone hit by a drone strike is officially considered to be an enemy combatant. Not that they only fire if they can prove these people are guilty, but that the fact that they fired is considered evidence of guilt. That's not taking responsibility, that a pre-emptive cover-up. And it's a complete perversion of the historical western legal principles.

If another nation did this to us we would consider it an act of war and retaliate. Yet when we do it, it's apparently not an act of war because it requires no declaration of war. If someone is in another sovereign nation, it is up to that nation to decide what that person can and cannot legally do and enforce that as needed. We don't get to be the world's police force; that's not how it works. If that nation is assisting this person in acts of war against us, then we can use existing legal frameworks to deal with that - things like sanctions and war.

Of course, maybe if we respected the sovereignty of other nations as we expect from them they'd be willing to work with us to police this sort of thing. All we're gaining by doing this is more enemies around the world.

American citizenship has no bearing if you are actively engaged in planning WAR against the USA.

Actually, yes, it does. Sorry to burst your authoritarian bubble there, but U.S. citizenship and due process are not things the U.S. government can remove without consent. If you hear otherwise, the U.S. government was doing something outrageously illegal.

The War on Terror is deliberately blurry to the point that any organization suspected of subversion can be considered an enemy. Even if they aren't citizens, does that make it just? You live in a fantasy world where the U.S. government can do no wrong.

obey the government, and work within the system to gain power. Don't bother trying to overthrow the Matrix.

The US Government, like all governments, has the exact same power structure as any other government, and that is: the strong get to rule over the weak.

You freedom-loving libertarians need to understand this concept. It really is a flaw among you libertarians to think that you somehow live in a "free" country. No, you do NOT live in a free country. You never have. Try breaking a law, and see how much freedom you have.

You're better off accepting that you have no power, rather than thinking you have any sort of power under a democracy. The key is, if you accepted how powerless you were, you would form different methods of gaining power, instead of through silly methods such as through the 2nd amendment, which was designed to help government control you...

Nobody at this point actually thinks their pathetic handgun is going to protect them against tyranny by a government armed with SWAT teams, drones, and nuclear missiles, do they? And their power was actually demonstrated via a civil war where Gen. Sherman burnt down half the south to clear out the rebellious traitors..

It really is shameful that Americans are taught that they have any sort of power, and it's sad seeing them come to the conclusion that they actually don't. The "freedom"-loving libertarian's ego is apparently the hardest thing to destroy, but it must be destroyed for them to actually gain real freedom and power.

Again, we have to make sure people understand that American do NOT have freedom, and that any attempt to make it look that way is the powerful attempting to control the weak by giving the weak an illusion of power.

I don't think you'll find many libertarians who believe they live in a free country.

Define "Freedom".

Some folks think freedom is just riding a motorcycle or owning some mass produced, stamped steel piece of shit assault rifle.

Others believe it is to do what the fuck they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.

And there are others who think they can do whatever they want on their own land - even if that means down the road it hurts others. - like dumping toxic waste on their land that eventually poisons the water table.

The "original design" did not depend on the labor of certain "3/5 people". It's easy to document that most founders, including Jefferson, opposed slavery. The situation they were in was that the Constitution needed to be ratified by all the colonies so that the whole would be greater than the sum of the parts. So, while they wrote the Constitution with certain compromises so that they could get citizens to ratify it, they incorporated sunset clauses to certain parts of slavery.

Jefferson opposed slavery so deeply that he remained a slave-owner (and slave-raper) for his whole life, while hammering out compromises to make sure others could do the same (including "sunset clauses to certain parts of slavery", aside from the "total ownership of another human being" parts). Obviously a fundamental commitment to the core of human freedom!

The original design was sovereign States who delegated a small, well-defined subset of their powers to a common body

That common body was structured so as to make it somewhat self-limiting, somewhat difficult to expand its reach..

It was also structured with layers of increasing responsibility that theoretically would help elevate the finest people to higher offices, even as it filtered out to a degree some of the more extremist voices.

"Nobody at this point actually thinks their pathetic handgun is going to protect them against tyranny by a government armed with SWAT teams, drones, and nuclear missiles, do they?"

Yes. Actually taking out an entire army strike team is pretty easy with the right stuff. Full armor, It's not hard at all to injure the lot of them and then use them as bait to get more. Drones are zero effort to take down. 30-06 hunting rifle will down one in seconds. Or are you brain dead and think the US army drones are like what you see when you play Black Ops II.. Sorry kid. But a lot of hunters have guns that make the army's M16 a girly gun. I hunt bear and use a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.700_Nitro_Express [wikipedia.org] 700 Nitro Round in my rifle. That round will kill someone in armor because it will be the same as a sledgehammer to the chest. Buddy of mine has a Barret 50. That will take out most helicopters and hit a target behind a brick wall by shooting through it.

I suggest you look at how the Taliban has pretty much spanked the US army really hard in Afghanistan with only rocks and mules. In the USA there area LOT more resources for an uprising to decimate the Military and police. Plus you have the problem that it's hard to make a soldier kill his own family and friends, so the US army sent in against the American citizenry will end with a lot of officers accidently killed by grenades. In viet-nam officers were fragged by the troops quite a bit.

So the fools like you that have zero education in history and negative education in combat or even firearm use have no clue at all.

Nobody at this point actually thinks their pathetic handgun is going to protect them against tyranny by a government armed with SWAT teams, drones, and nuclear missiles, do they?

You completely miss the point with this statement! Tyranny never starts with the government using the military to impose its will on the people (though it sometimes reaches maturity that way). Tyranny starts with "brownshirts".

The tool of the tyrant who is not yet firmly in control is unofficial (but government sponsored) armed gangs of thugs. They rely on terror and inability to resist to project power, but there are few people in modern culture willing to act that way. With an unarmed populace, 1-2% willing and eager to use violence to suppress dissent will win. But it only takes a similar number to be willing to fight back, to put themselves at risk when the browshirts come for their neighbors, and shoot the fuckers dead. Since most of us are not as brave as we'd like to be, that means you need ~20% of the population to be armed and have a strong moral compass, so that the bravest 5-10% of them actually act.

Governments involved in clandestine assassinations against their own citizens is a fairly rare and outrageous event in a democracy, I assure you.

I'd think it would be easier to issue a presidential edict saying that anyone who swears allegiance to Al Qaeda also renounces their American citizenship. Then you can kill them as foreign enemies without compunction. I don't know why they'd go to all this trouble to justify killing Americans, unless they wanted the ability to do it on a larger scale.

I'm not supporting Obama's policy but I don't think this is as evil as everyone is making it out to be. Our country is theoretically "at war" with Al Quada as an organization (whether that makes any sense is a whole other tangent). During World War II, plenty of German-American citizens living in the US flue back to Germany and fought against American forces. We didn't need due process to kill them on the battlefield. Whether you're an American citizen or not, if you're on foreign territory and pose a

There is a difference in actively moving in an armed group and aggressive tactics toward a front line and never committing a crime and being guilty for what you feel is right. In Germany you had people actively picking up arms against the US. In the drone strikes you had people actively driving or riding in a car. And while I hold no affinity for Al Qaeda I feel its treasonous for government official to kill a US citizen without a proper trial.

I'm not supporting Obama's policy but I don't think this is as evil as everyone is making it out to be. Our country is theoretically "at war" with Al Quada as an organization (whether that makes any sense is a whole other tangent). During World War II, plenty of German-American citizens living in the US flue back to Germany and fought against American forces. We didn't need due process to kill them on the battlefield. Whether you're an American citizen or not, if you're on foreign territory and pose a threat to our armed forces, there's not a large legal barrier to killing you.

Sure, there's nothing wrong with his policy. Until some faceless bureaucrat pops your name on some list and a sequence of different equally unaccountable government employees push buttons and gets you bombed by remote. When someone that cared about you objects, they're told that you were a terrorist, and they get on that list themselves.

If the human race fails in it's rampage towards extinction for the next 500 years, we'll look back on this era as the second dark ages.

Just stop for a moment and think about the different conclusions you would reach were Bush president rather than Obama. A lot of people can't bring themselves to criticize Obama because of the race angle.

I'm not supporting Obama's policy but I don't think this is as evil as everyone is making it out to be. Our country is theoretically "at war" with Al Quada as an organization (whether that makes any sense is a whole other tangent). During World War II, plenty of German-American citizens living in the US flue back to Germany and fought against American forces.

So now a theoretically declared war against a poorly defined group of individuals is the same as a congressional deceleration of war against a sovereign nation?

We didn't need due process to kill them on the battlefield. Whether you're an American citizen or not, if you're on foreign territory and pose a threat to our armed forces, there's not a large legal barrier to killing you.

In a genuine time of war exceptions to due process are made. We are not at war. We are not at war with Yemen, yet American citizen Anwar al-Aulaqi was killed there by a drone strike because of the memo you support. He was considered to be a high ranking al-Qaeda agent.

Two-weeks later is 16 year old son, Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi, was killed in similar air-strike. He too was an American citizen. He was traveling with a high ranking al-Qaeda agent, who was the actual target of the air strike. The strike was 'OKed" because Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi was considered to be a "military-age male."

We are not at war. As a country we have lost our way. A secret memo is released and we justify why it is OK to kill Americans abroad without any due-process. We claim we want transparency, and yet accept secret memos. We accept killing of foreign men, woman, and child in countries in which we are not at war, because 'civilian causalities are low'.

The President says "If We Can Just Save One Child..." we should give up are constitutional rights. According the Bureau of Investigative Journalism some 175 children have been killed by the drone program. What about saving just one of those lives? No, lets all attack the Bill of Rights when American children die, but programs that operate on the fringe of legality are OK because foreign children are not afforded the same protections.

Does our hypocrisy as a country have any limits? Do we ever look around, and say WTF is wrong with us. Do we not believe our rights to be natural, and our government is unique in that it recognizes and protects those natural rights? And if we believe these rights natural are they not natural to all people? If natural to all, then shouldn't our government, a government that respects natural rights, also at a minimum respect the natural rights of people in foreign countries, US citizen or otherwise? Or are the principles upon which the country was founded, tied only to the earth on which it is rooted?

The difference is that in WW2, a German-American soldier on a battlefield wearing a uniform and holding a rifle left no question as to his purpose or allegiance. It was an unambiguous situation, akin to a police officer fatally shooting an armed suspect during a bank holdup. Sure, that suspect was never convicted of a crime, but they were *right there firing a weapon at officers*.

What we're talking about now with these assassinations is much more like the police showing up at someone's home, breaking the door down, and shooting them because the DA says they were responsible for a bank robbery earlier in the week. That's not really how it's supposed to be done, and the risks to innocent citiznes in such cases due to ignorance, mistakes, or malicious official acts is much higher. There need to be checks and balances around such enormous power to protect innocent people.

The proper completion would be that the DA _claims_ they are part of or somehow assisting a large criminal organization without needing to offer any proof of this assertion.

That's the point. That's why everyone is so pissed about this. It's not about killing terrorists in foreign countries. It's that Obama (or one of his advisors) are judge, jury, and executioner. Actually, more than that, the same person is also the cop and detective. Even if they do nothing malicious, people make mistakes. In this case, a mistake could mean the death of American citizens. And they've made zero effort to try to prevent that. In fact, the entire point of this new policy is to actively dismantle the very systems designed to prevent that.

From the very first page it mentions it is for high level ranking al-Qa'ida located outside of the US.

It says nothing of the kind, because that is a claim that would require the individuals who are making the decisions about who to kill to be all-knowing and infallible, which they are manifestly not. The memo explicitly states that it is for people whom an "informed high level official of the US government" thinks for some reason is a "high level ranking al-Qa'ida leader located outside of the US".

Anyone with more than a grade three education will be aware that the set of "people categorized as X by some p

I agree. But due process would also require a lengthy ordeal to prove that they did the action that renounced their citizenship. Unless you want to skip that.

Also, people are people and should be afforded the same fundamental rights whether American or otherwise. Why not make slaves of non-Americans? If we can kill non-Americans without due process, why not make slaves of them? This whole obsession with assassination of Americans (as if killing non-citizens is obviously alright) makes me very uncomfortable

Which is the crux of the matter. These people have NOT been stripped of their citizenship (which is a judicial process) but deemed unlawful combatants by (secret) executive decision. No due process, no "cease and desist" letter, your first hint "you're on the list" is a smoke trail moving rapidly towards your window. What is fine for a guy building bombs, but becomes very weak for someone making speeches on the internet.

I think it's worse than that... they actually think that these killings are the proper way to deal with terrorists.Quite frankly, at this point, the American public deserves the authoritarian government, because they're actually clamoring for it. The Fox News crowd is just disappointed that the wrong guy is being authoritarian, and the anti-war crowd is so tiny to be pretty much irrelevant.

I care. It's why, among so many other reasons, I voted for Johnson. Obama and Bush have both committed impeachable offenses that absolutely dwarf Clinton's perjury. Throw in the stupidity of the Reagan/Bush years, and you've got to go back to Carter to find an honest president. And he was incompetent. It's a tough job to do with integrity and principle. And honestly, I would never ever want to be president.

People do care. Remember the Torture Memos of Yoo? That really got people upset about lawyers. Other than Yoo. And no one in the administration. Really, anyone who would challenge our ability to torture. Well, anyway, people got upset about something.

The ENTIRETY of the Obama presidency has been a demonstration by Democrats that they didn't disagree with GWB's policies, they merely hated the man and used his policies as a foil. Obama's entire first term was marked by the egregious continuation of every civil rights violation GWB envisioned, but amplified, and Democrats said nothing, unless it was to label a person asking serious questions as "racist."

If the past four years is any indication, Obama has nothing to fear from "progressives" -- and I say that term with absolute disgust, because "progressive" is just code for Democrat right wing neocon bastard pretending to be a peacenik. Which in my world is worse than Republican right wing neocon bastard not pretending.

The ENTIRETY of the Obama presidency has been a demonstration by Democrats that they didn't disagree with GWB's policies, they merely hated the man and used his policies as a foil. Obama's entire first term was marked by the egregious continuation of every civil rights violation GWB envisioned, but amplified, and Democrats said nothing, unless it was to label a person asking serious questions as "racist."

If the past four years is any indication, Obama has nothing to fear from "progressives" -- and I say that term with absolute disgust, because "progressive" is just code for Democrat right wing neocon bastard pretending to be a peacenik. Which in my world is worse than Republican right wing neocon bastard not pretending.

That is an enormous load right there. There has been substantial push-back on this and other issues from the progressive community for years. Do you ever check out the ACLU efforts, articles on the Huffington Post and Rolling Stone, and reporting and discussion on The Young Turks or Democracy Now? And those are just the ones I actually check out every now and then. Obama is not nor has he ever been a progressive, and he's also never been a "peacenik". Do you actually know any progressives, or do you just read about them on Fox News or in articles linked by the Drudge Report or on NewsMax? Disgust can go both ways.

Unfortunately there are many issues that have taken up all the oxygen in the political landscape and made this particular issue one that just ends up largely ignored. It's easy to see why given that the Republicans are more than happy to have this sort of policy in place, and many Democratic representatives are (as usual) afraid to make hay (and of course some just don't care). Perhaps more importantly, it is even more difficult to challenge the president of your party when the other party is vehemently and religiously against your president and party just for existing. I do hope some Dems, and others, challenge the president on this and force him to work through the Congress to produce legislation with oversight and accountability, and I will be writing my reps (again), but I also won't be holding my breath.

That's a really weird and out-of-touch assumption. Do you not realize that many of us are numb from GWBs tenure, and Obama's issues don't seem so bad by comparison so we let them go.

What?
1. Obama is forcing healthcare on a population whose majority said they didn't want it. His "health care reform" involved a gov't taking over health care, which was unwarranted and unwanted.
2. He is signing executive orders for gun control rather than letting Congress make laws.
3. He is against the saving of unborn ch

2. He is signing executive orders for gun control rather than letting Congress make laws.

You complain of people being delusional and yet make such a stupid mistake as this. Which executive order and which action within controls guns? He's issued orders telling people to review polices and internals rules, to discuss and analyze the implications of various things and to share information or promote something. None of that is overriding Congress's laws or creating laws or new gun control without Congress. To be so disconnected from reality, you expect others to listen to what you say and trust your judgement of others' grip on reality?

The citizen must be on foreign soil.They must be engaged with a enemy with which we are at war as declared by Congress.They must be determined to be engaged in planning or preparation for attacks against Americans that threaten American lives.There must be no feasible way to capture them.

How is this different from a cop who shoots an armed assailant before he has a chance to kill people ?

1. I like to travel to foreign countries. Now all humanity has a target on their back, including those already part of the evil galactic empire.2. Declarations of war cite a group, membership therein is subject to interpretation of much less stringency.3. How do they know what I'm thinking? With due process, the burden is on the state to PROVE it. No due process, no proof required.4. The watermark for "feasible" varies based on effort. They could spent a few millions of dollars trying to apprehend me, or ju

I think you're missing the facts here. The problem isn't that those they've killed so far were good people. That doesn't matter. What matters is that they are US citizens, the US government did not convict them, did not go before a judge at all, had no evidence at all that they were involved in anything. The document clearly states that the federal government simply needs to "strongly believe" the person is an imminent threat to the US and capturing them is infeasible.

Impeachment might be seen as a serious option if it hadn't been brought up about a 100 times by partisans since 2008. "Wolf" has been cried too many times.

Since 2008? You've either been living in a cave or are wearing a seriously impervious set of bias blinders. It's been a favorite weapon of partisans since *at least* opening years (and the multiple scandals thereof) of the first Clinton Administration, and has only gotten worse since then. During the 2000-2008 Bush Administration, it was practically the only plank in the position of opposing partisans.

The Clinton impeachment had nothing to do with "getting a blowjob from an intern". Clinton was impeached because he committed perjury, lying under oath.

Any other American citizen that lied under oath would face imprisonment, why is he a special case? Why do you feel the need to trivialize it and make it seem like it was about something else, namely his infidelity?

Right... but the point is look at the investigative time and effort put into even putting Clinton is the position of being able to commit perjury.

Then look at the similar effort put into bringing Cheney or Bush up for malfeasance concerning the Iraq War, exposing Plame as a CIA employee, hell any number of other things. Republicans so quick to crucify Clinton apparently lost their principles when it was their guys doing far worse.

Here are some presidential statements now known to be lies. Which one is the most serious crime? Which one is the least serious crime?

1. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." (Body count: 0. US crimes committed: 0. War crimes committed: 0)2. "You must pursue this investigation of Watergate even if it leads to the president. I`m innocent." (Body count: 0. US crimes committed: several. War crimes committed: 0)3. "There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction." (Body count: 600000. US crimes committed: several. War crimes committed: several)

This calls for Impeachment and trial of everyone involved. It will not happen of course, because murder is not as big a deal as getting a blowjob from an intern.

Impeachment can only happen if a law has been broken, and US law explicitly grants those rights. If you don't like that, you need to contact your senators and representatives, and get them to propose a law changing that. And wait for it to happen. And you still couldn't impeach because *its not illegal right now*.

Then they have declared they can do whatever they want. If the standard is they just "determine" who is a member of al queda and whether there is some vague emminant danger, the big question is, who, either before or after the fact, has standing to question these determinations?

If there is nobody who can bring this to court, and no way to have oversight, then this is nothing more than a declaration that Due Process is optional in their eyes and they can suspend it whenever they determine they have the need.... because assasination is de facto denial of due process.

Good question. You should have brought it up when the legislation was passed in September 2001. Here's the applicable language from the Authorization to Use Military Forced (AUMF):

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

You see the "he determines?" The Obama administration didn't make that up, because it's currently valid law. And it will be valid law until it is defeated in court or repealed. Section (b) says the AUMF complies with the War Powers Act which is complete BS, and the AUMF in total is an over delegation of congressional power a la Chadha.

This doesn't surprise me considering how far removed the US government is from understanding her primary function - to protect her own citizens. What's to stop them from declaring a leader of a political movement as dangerous, having “recently” been involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack - for example, declaring that the government has no right to interfere with private enterprises, or even supporting 2nd amendment rights?

US citizens relinquished citizenship [cornell.edu] and due process if they joined an enemy army of the US, whether it was the Redcoats, Germans, or Al Cada.

Its important to set clear boundaries. Joining the US Communist party or neo-nazis should not have had the same consquences because it never declared war on the US.
Plus I am concerned about growing use of domestic drone technology like for the in the Alabama kidnapping this week. Only a short step to arm them.

Well, sub-section 3 says "entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state" which Al Qaeda is not a foreign state. This is the same reason we keep detainees in Quantanamo instead of prisoners of war or prisoners. The Bush administration claimed they weren't enemy combatants because they didn't fight for a foreign state (standardized uniform and all that). Number 7 is more applicable, because it allows citizenship to be stripped for "bearing arms against the United States." However, section (b) states that the burden to prove loss of citizenship is on the party claiming the loss not on the supposed, um, loser. That's basic due process. Essentially if the government said he was no longer a citizen they have to prove it first.

Wait wait wait - it's leftist BS to argue that drone killings are unconstitutional? You might want to inform Fox News and the entire set of commentators on there that they're now just one hair short of growing a Lenin mustache and singing The International.

This is the country that sings "Land of the free and home of the brave". Talk about second amendment and the right/duty of the citizens to guard against tyranny. Then we go to our airports to be gate raped by TSA agents. The lunacy of the procedure is beyond comprehension. There was a picture of a returning war veteran removing his belt and boots to place on the conveyor belt, while a friendly smiling helpful TSA agent was holding his service rifle for him. The stupidity of the situation seemed to escaped both of them.

My experience has been that whenever this comes up in conversation with actual adults who, while not brilliant, are not stupid either... they get this dismissive look on their face. It is obvious they are thinking "oh, you are one of those conspiracy nuts, there is no way this could be real".

No, some of them that look isn't "there is no way this could be real". It's more like "are you really so nieve to believe this isn't how all countries run. Even Democracies". Are you honestly trying to convince people that "The South" had all the rights of US Citizens during the Civil War? Because that's the only logical conclusion of your argument. If you are in a state of Rebellion against the Government ether by Joining Al-qaeda, or the Confederacy you shouldn't be too surprised if the Government, Milit

This is all nonsense. By most people's reckoning and the US Government's own declaration, every Confederate killed at Antietem or Gettysburg was a US Citizen. By what legal authority did the Federal Government kill them? Shall the ACLU and their decendents sue the Government for killing them without due process?

Oh wait.. they were in open rebellion and waging war against the Republic. Citizens who join Al-Qeda are in open rebellion and are waging war against the Republic. The simple fact is, when you join the enemy and wage war, you can be killed. War is War. No convoluted legal reasoning is needed to kill the enemy in war. If you think otherwise, your mind is clouded with nonsense and you are lost in non-reality.

As the title suggests, please read the fucking article (PDF, not the lame NBC summary), for fuck's sake, before commenting. Let me quote from the very first paragraph for those too lazy:

Here the Department of Justice concludes only that where the following three conditions are met, a US operation using lethal force in a foreign country against a US citizen who is a senior operational leader of al-Qa'ida or an associated force would be lawful;

This is not a memo on how to "assassinate" just any US citizen. Rather, it is a memo on how when lethal force can be applied to a "citizen gone bad" if you will -- if one could even call "a senior operational leader of al-Qa'ida or an associated force" a US citizen (see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1481 [cornell.edu]). What's really sad is that the memo is plastered with the NBC logo all over, making it hard to read. Given this, and the apparently lack of reading comprehension and cherry picking of words, it seems NBC was too eager to up their readership with bold claims of assassinations of US citizens.

I say that YOU are a senior operational leader of al-Qa'ida or an associated force (like WikiLeaks, Anonymous, OWS or some other evil group plotting against Western economic interests).

Want to see the evidence against you? SorryWant your lawyer? SorryWant a trial before a jury of your peers? SorryBOOM!

In our Constitutional Republic it is illegal for the government to murder people simply because of the command of some bureaucrat. What the government "believes" about an accused "terrorist" could easily be based on false or fabricated evidence. That's why the government brings their evidence before a grand jury and IF an indictment is issued, the accused has a right to confront the evidence against them in a court of law.

If the government thinks they have enough evidence to KILL someone, surely they could get a damned indictment!

This is an impeachable offense. Too bad that there isn't a shred of integrity left in Washington DC.

Which party exactly is the party of limited government and civil liberties? It sure isn't the Democrats or the Republicans, and it sure isn't the Libertarians either as they are now thoroughly politicized.

There's one-party rule in the United States, and it comes in two subtly different flavors. No matter who you vote for, you're ultimately voting for the Banks, the Healthcare industry, the Military Industrial Complex and a few unions thrown in to make it all look fair.

Libertarian IS the party of limited government -- at least among parties which have any clout. They are at the moment for a government that's far smaller than most Americans are willing to accept, though. Also, what do you mean when you say "thoroughly politicized"? Is that even a valid critique? How can a political party NOT be politicized?

I honestly believe that the exact same thing would have happened with McCain or Romney as president. I also think Bush would probably have done the same thing if he'd had the drones available at the time. I can't prove it of course, but i do feel the fact that a bipartisan group of Senators were asking for the criteria used to kill Americans rather than demanding that it not happen at all kind of supports the idea. For the same reason i don't think Obama will be impeached or even seriously criticized by Congress over this. (If all the Republicans get together and try to pass a law that would effectively stop things like this i would get behind them on this one issue. But it ain't gonna happen.)

I voted for Obama in both of the previous elections. I didn't vote for him because i honsetly thought he would Change anything. One can always hope, but i didn't believe it would really happen, so i wasn't that disappointed when it didn't. I voted for him because i believed he wouldn't do _most_ of the things the Republicans said they wanted to do, and _maybe_ he'd actually manage to do one of two good things. And that's pretty much what happened. He's managed to do a couple things i view as good, and _mostly_ hasn't done the things the Republicans said they wanted.

I would rather have had a president who didn't do _any_ of the crappy things i believe the Republicans would do, but realistically there was no way to achieve that. In game theory terms i got the best outcome (from my perspective) that was possible under the current system. Under any kind of instant run-off system Obama would not have been my first choice. He might not even have been my second or third choice.

And both the Republicans and the Democrats know they can get away with a lot of crap exactly because of the two party system. "What are you going to do, vote for the Greens or Libertarians instead? Ha ha, go ahead, see how well that works out for you."

A Libertarian vote is a vote for banks and the health care industry because both of those industries can and do take advantage of ordinary citizens when given the chance, and libertarians generally want to give them that chance by reducing government oversight and regulation.

Some examples:A) Imagine a totally deregulated bank that is running short of funds. Their solution: Take money from their depositors in order to cover their current expenses. Sure, it's illegal, but the only thing that anyone can do is

So, do Democrats consider this a corroboration of the Bush policy (which means they'll have to admit they were wrong about Bush), or a corruption of their leader (which means they'll have to admit they were wrong about Obama)?

1. When someone makes a comment supporting MicroSoft.
2. When someone makes a comment bashing Apple.
3. When someone responds to their own post.
4. When someone screws up tags>br.
5. When someone suggests Cowboy Neal as an option in Slashdot polls.

When they take two parking spaces so that their expensive car doesn't get a scratch. Double parking too.When they refuse to tip the waitress AND leave a smug, self righteous remark.When they commit a violent crime with a weaponWhen they have committed up to 9 violent crimes without a weaponWhen they engage in malfeasance with investor funds in any bank or financial institutionWhen they engage in bribery of ANY public official (federal, state and local) anywhere at any time (Both the public official and the bribee). Campaign funds should explicitly be considered bribes.

There's even more cause for condemnation of Obama on this score: The Bush policy was a stay at Gitmo until guilt or innocence could be determined. The Obama policy, in the case of about 2/3 of the people currently in Gitmo, is that you stay there even if you've been declared innocent (they recently shut down the office that was handling sending innocent prisoners back to their homes).

Oh, and you'll notice I call them prisoners. Calling them "detainees" was nonsense, when they've been locked up for over a de

The difference is, "American Citizens" are protected by the US Constitution, a document the POTUS has sworn to uphold.Depriving a US citizen of their life without due process of law is a direct violation of that oath.Yes, it should be an offense worthy of impeachment... at the very least, people should care.